October 16, 2012

Something just came into focus for me this morning. You know that I didn't think Obama was that bad in the first debate and that I watched the debate a second time and still didn't think Obama was that bad. I heard something on the radio this morning that hit me as a revelation. It was NPR's Morning Edition, and I can't find the specific quote that jogged my thinking, but someone said the reason Obama made such a bad impression was that looking down and taking notes, he seemed as though he was agreeing with what Romney was saying.

I never thought about it that way, perhaps because, as a lawprof, I'm used to seeing people looking down and taking notes on what I'm saying and it never occurs to me that this behavior signifies that the note-takers agree with me. When I saw Obama looking down and writing, even when he nodded his head and smiled, I thought he was taking account of Romney's points for the purpose of refuting them when it was his turn to speak. I thought his casual attitude expressed confidence that he did in fact have answers to whatever it was Romney was saying.

But I'll assume most people don't read that behavior as I do. They took it to mean Obama was agreeing with Romney. If that's the basis for the opinion that Obama was terrible at the first debate, it would explain the advice worked out for Joe Biden: Whenever Paul Ryan is speaking, remember you are on camera and you need to manifest that you disagree with him. Don't allow yourself to look as though he's making some worthy points and reasonable people might agree with. Don't dutifully wait for your turn to refute those points. Show that you object constantly.

It was a ridiculous display, but I can understand how people who thought hard and tried to be analytical arrived at the notion that it was a good idea.

ADDED: Like me, Obama taught law school classes. Perhaps he shares my interpretation of the meaning of silent note-taking.

I doubt you're right about this. One doesn't have to be a professional lecturer in a university to realize that when Obama was taking notes and sometimes smiling when Romney was speaking, he wasn't agreeing with him. Particularly since Obama never agreed with Romney when his turn came to speak.

Everyone who goes to high school takes lecture notes, and understands the significance of it.

People took it the way they did because Obama, on many controversial topics, voiced actual agreement with Romney. It's the same strategy he took with Hillary at the debates: Agree on many things, but try and find a wedge. There just was no wedge against Romney because he had facts, something Obama was not prepared for.

but I can understand how people who thought hard and tried to be analytical arrived at the notion that it was a good idea

Really?

How about showing disagreement in the answers?

Biden acted the way all leftist act when engaged in political dialogue, they have no substance so they go for theatrics.

Note From the Pew Research Center:Six-in-ten voters say they watched at least a little of last Thursday night’s vice-presidential debate between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan at Centre College in Danville, KY. Among debate watchers, as many say Biden did the better job (47%) as say Ryan (46%). …Republican voters overwhelmingly say Ryan did the better job in the debate (88%); a comparable percentage of Democrats (89%) say Biden did the better job. Among independents, 50% say Ryan did better, 39% say Biden

It also doesn't help the "strategy" when said strategy is dependent on an imbecile to carry it out.

Biden was, I think, expecting more push back from Ryan (besides politely asking "both of us" to stop interrupting.) If Ryan had done the same as Biden, it would not have looked so odd. But, Ryan was polite, reserved and patient.

Whenever Paul Ryan is speaking, remember you are on camera and you need to manifest that you disagree with him. Don't allow yourself to look as though he's making some worthy points and reasonable people might agree with. Don't dutifully wait for your turn to refute those points. Show that you object constantly.

Alternatively,Joe Biden is dimwitted and showing his age.

Alternatively,he was trying to provoke Ryan into losing his temper thus revealing that Romney/Ryan really are the cold, calculating robber baron ticket!

This is the sort of thing novice debaters do their freshman year of high school. It takes months for coaches to get them to realize that all their crazy facial expressions and head shaking does nothing to convince the judge that their position is better. In fact, it only makes the judge look for a reason to vote against you.

And anyone who has sat on a jury will tell you just how annoying it is if audience members are shaking their heads, mumbling comments or acting like what a witness is saying is ridiculous.

These actions show a lack of respect for the audience. In this case, it was the voters. Biden in no way helped his cause. All he did was fire up people who hate Ryan and think anything he says is ridiculous. Only those biased to the cause. Those who either like Ryan, like discourse, or haven’t made up their mind completely had to of been put off by this.

I think it's reaching a bit. Obama went into the first debate feeling confident with a small but comfortable lead, especially in electoral college votes. So you play prevent defense, or a better Obama analogy, run the four corner offense. Disagree when necessary, but look presidential, in control. Make your opponent make up lost ground. Of course, it failed, as Romney performed beautifully and voters responded.

With Biden, he's the veep. The veep can be the attack dog, the bad cop, and not let it settle all on president's shoulders. Heck, if he keeps it up for 90 minutes he might rattle the new kid. But no harm, no foul one way or another...

I hardly think anyone would come away from the VP debate with a worse impression of Biden. He's been full of shit for a long time and his behavior on the Judiciary Commitee when questioning SCOTUS nominees, being a prime example. But he's been given a free pass by a certain percentage of voters because...well you know.

I, like the Professor and others, came away from the first debate thinking "Obama won". It seemed close, but I figured Obama stayed Presidential and thoughtful, and I thought that would be enough-- that Romney needed to clobber him.

I guess I was terribly wrong. But it seems to me that too many people take their impressions of who "won" the debate from the MSM. The MSM said Romney clobbered Obama, and I suspect (here my conspiracy theorist shows through) that this helped the pollsters to quickly start "tightening up" their models and reports.

Pat Caddell said on FNC yesterday that every MSM analyst was already writing the column that says Obama clobbered Romney tonight. That result would fit my conspiracy theory.

Er... Romney DID clobber Obama in the first debate. The first half hour is essentially Obama lying about $5 trillion (which his campaign later admitted to) and Romney calmly, patiently explaining to him that he is incorrect. It is like a Goofus/Gallant of debate prep, with Obama as Goofus and Romney as Gallant.

I disagree about the note taking and nodding. I read the body language as that of someone who's taking criticism poorly. Lots of nodding, little eye contact -- someone who wants to say yes without coming to actual agreement. Think of being lectured by your parents -- you already know what they're going to say, you think it's a little unfair that you have to be quiet and take it. You nod and try to move on without engaging.

More generally, I think his problem in the debate was that he was trying to get by with a half effort. The things he was saying weren't horrible, they just weren't the best arguments possible. It was kind of tired and repetitious and passionless. It was easy to remember that he had been skipping out on debate practice, and you kind of wondered what other things he had been giving half efforts to.

Think you're misreading that. Obama got whooped because he's not that good. Was never good, in fact, was just better - much better, will stipulate - than Bush, and thus the contrast in 08 made him appear like a superman. Plus cannot forget he's black, and there's a well known tendency among liberals to wildly enthuse about "articulate" blacks.

As for Biden making an ass of himself, it had nothing to do with note-taking, it was just over-reacting to Obama's whooping.

I read an analysis I agree with. They said Biden worked for the Dem base. The base wanted someone to express their contempt for everything Republican and Biden did that. Sorry I don't remember where I read that and I'm too lazy to google.

Althouse is overthinking again. Obama did not rebut many of the accusations Romney made. He left them hanging. It wasn't so much the looking down, but it was that when he did look up, Obama often didn't engage with the accusations that Romney had just put to him. What is the point of taking notes if you then ignore the attack?

Biden, like Romney it pains me to say, let nothing his opponent said go unchallenged. There was a world of difference stylistically in Romney's approach, but the perception of strength versus weakness was much the same. I'm not a hugh fan of Palin, but she handled Biden much more effectively than Ryan.

You're falling for it, even though you recognized the truth. Obama was not especially bad - Romney was just much better. Romney was good when he was being factual and he was good when he was blowing smoke. He was just good.

Still, it's what you would expect from someone who is smart, does his homework and practiced with the idea that he could lose and needed to do a good job. It's not surprising at all if you did your own homework about Romney.

Obama's performance was also not a surprise if you have looked at him and his work habits, rather than the fluff.

Zero has to knock it out of the park tonight. Mitt only has to stay at the same level he was on in the first debate. Since Zero is the one asking to have his contract renewed the onus is on him. Promising four more years of the same isn't going to cut it. So all he has left to offer is that Romey will be worse than him. That's a tough sale to make.

Typical female, overthinking it. This is how you mind-$^&%ed yourself into voting for him the first time.

Obama is the emperor with no clothes, and he and his people have long believed that if you repeat a lie enough people believe it, their problem is that they believed it too. He was unprepared, he was convinced that Romney was stupid because his people said so,and he has frankly done a lot of disasterous things in office that cannot be defended in an honest conversation.

Obama had not had a real press conference in 7 months. He got into office by using lawyers to exclude or ruin his opponents, until he had to lie, cheat and lie some more against Hillary. McCain was a hand-selected patsy.

SO Biden's rudeness was heavily coached, giving Obama permission to be a jerk in the next debate as long as he isn't as big a jerk as Biden.

The problem with Biden's performance was not the plan, but the performance, and that's because of who they were stuck with as the performer.

Yesterday a story came out that said that Biden was the only member of the administration who was against pulling the trigger on Bin Laden. The man has never been right about anything. The perfect choice for an Obama running mate, and his first mistake as President. Unfortunately not his last. I hope we can end his string in January. Regardless he will make some doozies as a lame duck. I can hardly wait for that fiasco.

Debates are all about optics: who looks "Presidential"? Romney won by looking presidential, Biden lost by looking like Joker. Not too many people pay attention or follow what the candidates say. They know those are either lies, half truths, or promises that would never be kept. Why bother? The undecideds will decide with their gut feelings.

So Romney wasn't taking notes while the President spoke, or took them more quickly than the President, or knew when the camera was on him?

If one is disdainful of another (as the President clearly is of Gov. Romney) one does as little as possible to engage or acknowledge him. The President has two more chances to get past that starting tonight.

I disagree. If Obama does just a little better, the media will swoon and talk about Obama being on "top if his game" and the first debate was "an anomaly".

I say this because the media proclaimed Biden the winner when only Dems thought he did OK. The nature and reasonable interoretation would have been that Biden over did the theatrics and looked bad to independents and Ryan was disappointing and failed to carry Romney's momentum forward.

The signs that Romney was really good in the first debate are the Democrats' response that those were "lies." I also didn't think Obama was that bad but he was passive. I was just very pleased that Romney was doing so well. My personal opinion in the Biden debate was that the lefties are discouraged and just wanted to see the hated GOP slapped around. Slow Joe gave them what they wanted and they didn't care if he alienated women and moderates, so important the weeks before.

But what does it mean that I don't recollect either Romney or Ryan taking notes?

Perhaps, like me you saw a slightly different debate. There were two different camera feeds- I began watching on CNN where they had a split screen, with side by side closeups of their faces. When I switched to CSPAN, when one candidate was speaking, the other had his back to the camera. It wasn't obvious there was note taking going on...

Obama was poorly prepared for the debate. He was fuzzy and disengaged. He isn't a great speaker.

Here's a excerpt from answer to what would you do as president?

Number two, what’s important is occasionally you’ve got to say now to -- to -- to folks both in your own party and in the other party. And you know, yes, have we had some fights between me and the Republicans when they fought back against us, reining in the excesses of Wall Street? Absolutely, because that was a fight that needed to be had.

He may be clean but he's inarticulate. That won't change in this debate. I still can't see why anyone still thinks he's so masterful. If you believe in his policies vote for him, but if you are disgusted by the huge amounts of waste and spending, don't.

All through Obama's administration there have been examples of how Obama fights adversaries. He disses them by pretending to ignore them, to act as if they are unimportant. This is how he has handled our allies like the British, Netanyahu, and others. It's a long standing personal style.

He is always trying to play people - either pretending you are the center of his attention, or ignoring you depending on what he wants. It is his primary tactic, and he cannot easily drop it.

Obama underplayed his convictions, Biden arguably overplayed them, Romney struck a better balance. It is, in my opinion, a poor way to judge a candidate, but theater is theater. People tune it to watch the word fight.

One interesting analogy that comes not from my teaching days but from days of appearing in court on behalf of clients -- I remember that sometimes clients would get angry if I underplayed my statements. I tended not to get angry and stick with a calm message and that was really disturbing to some: they felt I didn't appear convinced of the strength of my arguments. I couldn't agree less, but after a while, I saw their point: one fired up lawyer against one calm lawyer-- which would you prefer to have on your side?

That's a very charitable analysis of Obama's debate performance. I doubt he can do much more than look a little better because on substance he's going to get hammered.

Anyone who's spent time at a poker table can tell Biden is a man projecting more strength than he actually has. He hasn't the confidence of his points, so he covers them with mannerisms. And that's being charitable to Biden. It's possible he's just a dick.

Romney is going to win in a landslide. Obama has been exposed. Liberals, the trust fund baby populated liberal media have contempt for the American people and their contempt has at long last been exposed too. The American people via the first debate have had an epiphany. Romney in a landslide.

The teacher analogy is interesting. As a teacher of young children I see what Obama did as passive resistance or aggressiveness. The sullenness and refusal to look the adult in the eye is very tell-tale. Taking notes or appearing to disregard the other by doing something else while they're talking is also characteristic.

The spin/"framing" the major MSM editorialists/opinion-makers put on this is key. (I don't mean the campaign spin-meisters) Political Science texts call this the "two-step flow of communication" wherein the majority of people do not make up their minds from the debate itself, but rather by how it is interpreted by all the "really smart" people. The Nixon-JFK debates were a classic example. Polling immediately after the debate showed that radio listeners overwhelmingly thought Nixon had won. This was so extraordinary that the pollsters went back two weeks later and re-polled the same people just to be sure. In the intervening time-period, however, all the MSM editorialists--who uniformly watched the debates on TV--declared JFK the overwhelming winner. Re-polled, those radio listeners now changed their minds and a bare majority this time declared JFK the winner--mainly on the basis of those editorials they responded. TV Debate replays were not a factor--as the entire debate was never re-played on-air during that time-period..

So true Nina, Democrats aren't so different than Republicans in that they want to see their candidate as convicted as they are. Obama's strength is to stay calm and collected, but when I perceive him to not be engaged, it's frustrating. I used to worry way back in 2008 when he and Hilary were head to head, that he was too aloof and that trait would come back to bite him.

the reason Obama made such a bad impression was that looking down and taking notes, he seemed as though he was agreeing with what Romney was saying.

I find that a bizarre interpretation for people's responses to Obama's looking down. Since this is the first I've read it anywhere, I doubt many viewers, lawprofs or not, read Obama's behavior as agreement with Romney.

Consequently, it is a slender reed upon which to build an argument for Biden's behavior.

In any event, looking down for long periods of time while in a televised debate is nearly as poor form as turning one's back to the audience.

To me it looked like Obama was angry or upset and trying to conceal his emotions, or that Obama despised Romney so much that he refused to look at him.

But never, ever would it have occurred to me that Obama was signifying agreement with Romney. I have to say that strikes me as a flat stupid idea, and more a liberal rationalization of the debate fiasco than anything else.

Biden was, I think, expecting more push back from Ryan (besides politely asking "both of us" to stop interrupting.) If Ryan had done the same as Biden, it would not have looked so odd. But, Ryan was polite, reserved and patient.

This.

Biden kept waiting for Ryan to break and play the game. It was gamble to get Ryan out of the intellectual sphere where he excels (and Jokin' Joe doesn't) into the emotional sphere where Joe could just ham it up, egg on Ryan to hopefully say something foolish or unintended and possibly look like the winner in a fight in which both were pigs.

Obama usually poses with his nose up in the air, like all those famous posters and iconic photos. So, of course his worshippers were shocked when all he did was look down at his podium for 90 minutes - they'd never seen him strike that pose before!

More seriously, Zero is in trouble precisely because the media hasn't ever held his feet to the fire, so he's not used to taking tough questions or answering any real criticism. He's never faced a legit opponent before (at least not since losing to Bobby Rush in his very first campaign). So this is really uncharted water for him - mostly of his own doing, with a big assist from the compliant, lapdog media.

I have yet to see an explanation of VP Biden's performance that makes sense to me. But whatever the thinking and strategizing was that's going into the Dem's debate prep is, I think it ignores a compelling reality.

Gov. Romney spent years in the investment management business. This necessarily involves presenting plans and ideas to groups of very smart people who are paid to say no. And, they are paid well to do this.

To survive in that role one simply needs to be outstanding in the convincing presentation of complex ideas and proposals. One needs to be nearly perfect in both content and delivery. It is an exceedingly unforgiving environment.

I don't think that President Obama ever really had to hone those skills as a community organizer, state senator from a friendly district, US senator from a blue state, or presidential candidate in an election weary of both Clintons and republicans.

Why did Biden act that way? Do you see or hear talk radio and opinion TV? Bombast, up to a point, always gets people's attention.

He was also following the Garage Mahal-Alinsky Rules of Radical Engagement: always be on offense, make the other guy defend-defend-defend. Democrats are good at this because the stuff they implement is always shitty, so they simply resort to flinging poo at everything Republican. They can't defend their own shitty programs. But the fact that they keep getting elected means this tactic works pretty well.

"One fired up lawyer against one calm lawyer.... which would you prefer to have on your side?"

With all due respect, & I wasn't a trial lawyer, this is what is known as the "fallacy of incomplete enumeration".

I would prefer a trial lawyer firmly & strongly in command of the facts & the law & able to present the story/issue, i.e., facts in a reasonable, even-tempered manner, using emotion & humor when necessary, no matter what opposing counsel is doing.

I don't think the choice need be between Mr. Bluster vs. Mr. Milquetoast.

BTW Howdy Doody & a pre-1953comic strip character; does that show my age?

November 6, we replace a loser with a leader. Liberals can wallow in their liberal emotional excrement while bragging about how they much they care for poor people as we conservatives and independents elect a leader who has respect for his fellow man, a leader who knows people have dignity and deserve to be treated as adults not as children by a nanny nation.

"This small article from the Wall Street Journal by Sara Murray provides a very good look at one aspect of Mitt Romney's leadership skills. If a key part of the organization stumbles, you don't fire them, you get them ready for the next round."

"Hewlett-Packard CEO Meg Whitman told me in an interview during the RNC's Tampa Bay convention that during her time at Bain everyone --everyone-- wanted to work for Romney on his projects. This approach to mistakes is no doubt part of the reason why. No Captain Bligh dramatics, no Hollywood faux rage, but calm, professional leadership."

I think they should be able to bring notes, just as many as they want.

NO! The point of a debate is to show which side is most prepared and able to rebut the points presented by the other side. It isn't the time to make written speeches or read from notes. Although any good debater will have already, in their head, memorized speech snippets that can be used to counter arguments.

Debating is the ability to put yourself into the other person's mind and think of all the arguments that they might make and be ready to counter all possible arguments and points. Practice Practice PRACTICE.

The point is to see who is most nimble in their thinking. Can think on their feet. Pull facts and arguments from their brain. Able to bring together your facts and arguments in new ways DURING the debate.

Taking notes during the debate is a good idea because there may be a point that you want to rebut or refute, and you may not have that option in an immediate time frame, and you do NOT want to forget it in the flurry of comments and arguments. Also a new point may occur to you, when your opponent is speaking, that you will wish to bring up when it is your turn to speak.

(Captain of my college debate team and we were damned good!)

To have all the information on written notes is a terrible idea for a debate.....well you might as well use a teleprompter or just phone it in. Pre-written notes tell us nothing about the candidates or debater if everything is just canned and ready there is no skill involved.

I just wanted to say that I look down and take notes *when* I agree. When I disagree I'm generally looking up at my instructor, intensely, with a "what are you on?" expression.

Synova: I'm sure you do.

However, if you were debating before a television audience of 70 million on one of the most important occasions of your life, you would probably not respond as though you were a student attending a lecture.

I don't say this to single you out, but to emphasize how bizarre Obama's behavior. I've never seen a political candidate do that on television. I don't remember Obama doing that four years ago.

Althouse keeps saying Obama wasn't that bad in the debate, and maybe he was just mediocre if one ignored his body language.

But I believe it was all that peculiar looking down that killed Obama in most people's eyes by the end of the night. It was hard to interpret his body language, but everyone sensed it was odd and less than optimal.

Sure DBQ but if someone read prepared bits they'd look like an idiot. If they didn't know what was on the notes they'd look like an idiot.

I just thought it was weird when people were all "Romney had a cheat sheet!". A cheat sheet with what on it, pray tell? Some bit of debate winning data that he wouldn't know otherwise? It's just stupid.

I never did "debate" in school but the competitive "speech" categories that I did all allowed notes. I'd carry a suitcase full of news magazines to competitions and have 20 minutes to prepare once I'd been given my topic. I used notes. That made it no less spontaneous... hit these points, cite that data...

Candidates wouldn't know what questions they'd have and they'd have rebuttals so anyone *reading* would look dumb. But someone pulling numbers off their notes to dispute the other guy would look well prepared.

"Taking notes during the debate is a good idea because there may be a point that you want to rebut or refute, and you may not have that option in an immediate time frame, and you do NOT want to forget it in the flurry of comments and arguments. Also a new point may occur to you, when your opponent is speaking, that you will wish to bring up when it is your turn to speak."

DBQ: I'll take your word that it can be useful to jot an occasional note during a debate.

But Obama kept getting lost down there for ten, twenty and thirty seconds at a time. It seemed like something different from notetaking. It seemed like a near-pathological disconnect with the social reality of the occasion: an important, nationally televised debate.

As a debate captain, wouldn't you intervene with a teammate who was behaving as Obama did that night?

I can't imagine that Obama's prep team let that go. He won't do that tonight.

Really? You just asked us that you dumbass, within your pitch perfect display of a used car salesman cartoon.

It is the thickness of the wall put up that contains the Biden reality distortion that doesn't allow a single Ryan utterance to penetrate, it is the actual disavowal of communication, the intense need in stopping any Ryan expression before it gets expressed, kill it before it's said, like abortion, It was the scene of an abortionist killing Ryan's reality word for word as it exited Ryan's mouth

and that's why

Biden and Obama and all the rest are having their asses handed them again come just a few weeks.

In short, it was the disordered scattered conversation that goes past each other, the same political discussion I have with nearly everyone I know with precious few exceptions.

Please understand that Biden and Obama and their minions spend many happy moments mocking Republicans and their supposed intellectual inferiority. They have done so with each other and their cohorts for years, decades in the case of Biden. They actually believe that business people are not as bright as them and are callous to boot. They believe this. Each of them is convinced that if they were not giving their lives for the good of all they would be rich themselves, rich by their own making. These false premises are the thin ice upon which they skate.

I don't think the debate performances matter as much as many seem to think. Not saying they don't matter at all; just that they are overblown.

I didn't think President Obama's performance was as awful-terrible as it is portrayed; but even if so, again, it doesn't matter that much. He sure lowered expectations, didn't he?

Our genial hostess made an excellent point some days ago; that it is to Obama's benefit that the talk be about how bad he was, rather than, how good Romney was. Romney was fairly likely to come out of the first debate better than he came in, because Obama's strategy is to paint him as Thurston Howell by day, Count Dracula by night. So maybe they said, let Romney have his night.

If the presidential candidates debating doesn't matter all that much, then the veep candidates' debate matters much less. All they needed was for Biden not to scare people. He didn't. His clownish behavior actually has two benefits: 1) it's a distraction from all the stuff Obama really doesn't want to talk about and 2) it makes Obama look better by comparison. Obama doesn't have passion? Joe does. Joe seems unbalanced? Don't worry, "No drama" 'Bama will cool it down.

Also, given the carping from Obama's friends about his debate performance, sending Biden out to behave that way does two things: it gives the critics what they want; and when the reviews come in, not so positive, it shuts them up.

I don't think the debate performances matter as much as many seem to think. Not saying they don't matter at all; just that they are overblown.

Fr Martin Fox: When debates matter, they matter ... in some cases, big time. Two weeks ago we saw the most striking example in the modern era.

In ninety minutes Romney undid several hundred millions of dollars of negative campaigning from the Obama team, reversed the tide of the polls, and drew even with Obama or overtook him, depending on which polls you favor.

That was huge.

Before the debate Romney had been written off by most of the MSM, the traders at Intrade and Nate Silver had Obama with an 80% likelihood of winning.

So maybe they said, let Romney have his night.

People say this, but never offer any support. I don't see it myself. After working so hard and spending so much money on Obama's campaign, they said, "Let Romney have his night"? I don't believe it.

If Obama had decisively beaten Romney that night that would have clinched the election (aside from the Benghazi wildcard). If Obama had matched Romney, the prevailing momentum would have improved Obama's already good chances.

As a debate captain, wouldn't you intervene with a teammate who was behaving as Obama did that night?

Once the debate is in progress, the members are on their own. The Captain can't stop the debate or intervene.....although the idea of a big hook around the neck dragging the person away has crossed my mind.

I can't imagine that Obama's prep team let that go. He won't do that tonight.

That's why you need to prepare and prepare and film yourself. Review the film. Fix your demeanor and errors and do it over and over and over again. If you have a team member (like Obama) who doesn't take the criticism seriously, who doesn't prepare or rehearse, or who thinks that he/she knows everything and goes off on a tangent you are in big trouble. This is what O'Biden seemed like to me in his over the top performance. In a "real" debate situation, he would be given a big fat "F" and thrown off of my team in a second.

Our genial hostess made an excellent point some days ago; that it is to Obama's benefit that the talk be about how bad he was, rather than, how good Romney was...Let Mr. Romney have his night.

Would make sense if the President had ground to give, recent polling indicates that he didn't.

Kim Strassel in th WSJ indicated in a recent column that the damage done by this approach was to Mr. Obama's momentum and to his campaign strategy to date:

Cue the frantic "What now?" question in Chicago. Campaigns are about momentum, and after Wednesday's debacle, Mr. Obama will be under great pressure to come up with something fresh.

[..]

Yet the painful reality is that the strategy Mr. Romney torpedoed on stage was the best Team Obama had. The president can't run on his legislation; it isn't liked. He can't run on the economy; it's terrible. Pivot to something sunny and big? Too late.

"I don't think the debate performances matter as much as many seem to think." (1:56)

Hombre said:

The first one mattered because it was many people's first opportunity to see Romney at a neutral site where he could not be defined by Obama's smear campaign or media bias.

Well, and that goes along with another point I was trying to make. A lot of Romney's "success" in the first debate was a product of this; how could it not be?

I remember in 1984, all the buzz about how Mondale won the first debate, and how shaky Reagan looked. Obviously that didn't make much difference.

Again, I didn't say they don't matter, but I think their importance is overstated. For those who are committed to your candidate--which is most of those who are likely to vote--you either see your guy winning, or you explain away his stumble.

For the undecided/uncommitted...I'm curious (a) how many there are and (b) how many of them will actually vote? At some point, you're talking about people who, I suspect, will never bother to show up on election day.

creeleyI agree, when they matter, they really matter. Not all presidential debates produce anything, but when they do it's a big deal for a long time. We still talk about those moments many years later.

Romney also took notes, but he spent more time looking attentively and politely at Obama.

Obama didn't just look down & take notes. He had a peevish, petulant look when he did glance Romney's way. And his answers were the same old same old vague talking points. No substance and definitely not truthful.

I listened NPR for some time after I listened to the last debates, and they were so partisan, and stretched the facts so much, it was shameful. So I can see no good reason to take whatever they pronounce for serious dicussion.

NPR spin aside. I got an impression that Obama looked down as much when he was talking to Romney as when listening to him. I got very strong impression that Obama could not meet Romney's eyes. He also blinked a lot when trying to talk directly to Romney. I think this is the reason people found him less trustworthy than Romney. A debater who have no guts to look the opposite side in the eyes is not exactly perceived as somebody who is confident in what he is saying.

I don't think the debate performances matter as much as many seem to think. Not saying they don't matter at all; just that they are overblown."

It matters far more for Republicans, especially in recent years. There are very few opportunities for Republicans to reach the voting public without the media putting a big fat thumb on the scale. Stephanopolis' question to Romney about contraception last spring is an example of how difficult it is for Republicans. That question was obviously coordinated with the Obama camp. Gingrich got big applause when he attacked the moderators.

When there was a proposal to have Fox News stage a debate with the Congressional Black Caucus (!) in 2010, the Democrats refused. Without the leftist moderators, there would be no debates. That's why the laft was so angry at Lehrer.

I don't think most people took it as either of the alternatives. I know that both my wife and I thought it was because he was pissed off and didn't want people to see his anger. Here in Hawaii it's called "stink eye" and he was gonna give it if he looked up.

"One interesting analogy that comes not from my teaching days but from days of appearing in court on behalf of clients -- I remember that sometimes clients would get angry if I underplayed my statements. I tended not to get angry and stick with a calm message and that was really disturbing to some: they felt I didn't appear convinced of the strength of my arguments. I couldn't agree less, but after a while, I saw their point: one fired up lawyer against one calm lawyer-- which would you prefer to have on your side?"

I've had some experiences like that in the law school. Some people seem to want puffery and fulsome praise. To me, that's inherently unbelievable. You build you credibility with modesty and precision. Ask me in private some time and I'll give you juicy details. (I mean Nina, not just anybody!)

I truly enjoy reading on this internet site. Very nice post. I just stumbled upon your weblog and wished to say that I have truly enjoyed surfing around your blog posts. After all I’ll be subscribing to your rss feed and I hope you write again soon! This post shows a report that is tighten to common. credible strategy of countenance resulting from which cause your post turn so informative.vakantiehuis dordogne